Scientists Say Float Therapy Can Reset Your Mind. Here's What It Really Feels Like.
Float therapy involves floating in lukewarm water (meant to match your body temperature) mixed with magnesium sulfate, or Epsom salt. When you're floating, the magnesium sulfate enters the body through the skin and helps your muscles relax—similar to how you would in a homemade Epsom salt bath.
Meet the expert: Justin Feinstein, PhD, is a clinical neuropsychologist and the president and director of the Float Research Collective.
This type of sensory deprivation therapy is 'a unique way to help people access states of mindfulness,' says clinical neuropsychologist Justin Feinstein, PhD, who has studied the effects of float therapy in those with anxiety. "It puts the nervous system in a reset" and can improve your mental health in the short term.
The goal of floating in a pod is to minimize every outside sensation so you're left focusing only on what you're feeling (your heartbeat, breathing, being alive, etc). That's why the room is as silent and dark as possible, and why the water and air temperatures match that of the skin.
But float therapy isn't just helpful for relaxing—ahead, find out more benefits, plus what happened when I tried it for the first time.
The Benefits Of Float Therapy
It may improve mental health. Float therapy can be a good stress outlet for folks teetering on the edge of burnout, and even help ease symptoms of anxiety and depression, per the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This can also help improve muscle tension and sleep difficulties.
It might help people with physical conditions. Research suggests it can be used as a treatment for chronic pain, fibromyalgia, and multiple sclerosis.
It can potentially improve . Through his research, Feinstein found that some people's 'blood pressure goes down 10 to 15 points during the float,' he says.
It may help sore muscles recover. Epsom salt offers anti-inflammatory benefits, Feinstein explains, and studies show that it may reduce muscle soreness.
Something especially cool: Apparently the full relaxation effect of float therapy does not even set in until an hour after the float—and your state of relaxation can even last for a full 24 hours afterward. In addition to being a great workout recovery tool, Feinstein says he recommends float therapy as a short-term solution for people with anxiety or depression—although more research needs to be done to solidify its benefits.
If you're thinking these benefits sound too good to be true, I was in the same boat. I was especially intrigued given its muscle recovery benefits, since I'm an avid runner. Here's what happened when I gave it a shot.
Join Women's Health+ today for member-exclusive workout and meal plans.
Here's What Happened When I Tried Float Therapy For The First Time
A quick internet search revealed there was a studio that offered float therapy only 15 minutes away from me, called Float Seattle. Given that I was primarily interested in the potential muscle recovery benefits, I went on an intense tempo run the day before to make sure I was really putting float therapy to the test.
As predicted, I walked into the studio feeling the kind of soreness that likes to say hi after every stair you climb up. But I was feeling immediately more at ease when I got inside the waiting area. Rather than the clinical environment of a doctor's office waiting room, the lobby reminded me of the lounge at a high-end spa: squishy couches positioned in front of framed photos of abstract art, ginger tea brewing at a station in the corner, and nature sounds wafting throughout the space.
Upon my arrival, I completed a quick orientation. An employee showed me my pod and explained how to open and close the top, how to position my body when floating, and what to do before getting into the water. She also let me know that music would play when it was time for my session to end, then she left the room.
Like at most pools, I was required to shower before entering the pod. The employee recommended cleansing in lukewarm water towards the end of the shower to prepare for the water in the pod being a little cooler than my usual shower temp. While I could wear a swimsuit if I wanted, I opted not to in order to enhance the experience.
When I entered the pod, all I could think about was how...not spa-like it felt.
I knew that the water wouldn't be super hot, but I was expecting an experience a little bit like being in a hot tub. However, in the pod, it almost felt like I was in a womb. (I mean, I was naked inside an egg with water.) I also found myself wondering how much of the hour I had left.
But eventually I stopped counting the minutes. I slowly started to feel less self-conscious and aware of the fact that I was exposed and trapped in the small space. I stopped thinking about how the fluid kept drifting in my ears, or how to position my body in the least-weird way. I turned off the light and closed my eyes. All of my thoughts seemed to sink to the bottom of the pod.
Once I let go of my anxiety and insecurity about the experience, it felt like the music chimed only minutes later. But when I put my watch back on, I realized I had actually been in the pod for over an hour.
After my session, my mind felt calm and my body felt ready to take on another tough run.
Every muscle in my body felt relaxed during and after my soak. I'd compare it to how you might feel after, say, a three-hour (!) massage. When the employee at the front desk asked how I liked the experience, all I could do was nod with a daydreamy expression and sip at my cup of ginger tea.
It's hard to remember another time I truly just let myself literally lay back and think about nothing. Even when I've tried meditating, I've usually just spent the time stressing about how I was stressing. Beyond physically repairing my body, I felt amazed at how mentally calm and clear the experience made me. Hey, maybe it was just placebo—but I felt good.
How To Try Float Therapy For Yourself
Want to try float therapy yourself? It's totally safe for most people—even those who are pregnant. The only people who should exercise caution are those with claustrophobia, since it involves lying in an enclosed space filled with water. However, because you can lift the top of the pod at any time, you might be fine after you get used to the atmosphere.
Feinstein says that he's never actually tested float therapy on anyone using a closed pod because people with severe anxiety generally don't want to try it if they're enclosed in a space. Instead, he has simply made sure the room had the same effects that the enclosed pod would (sound-proofing the space, removing light, etc.). So you might even be able to find a studio that provides the experience without being put in a small space. You can also talk to your doctor or therapist first if you're unsure about whether float therapy is a good fit for you.
The only issues I had with float therapy were the price (one session at Float Seattle costs $89) and the amount of time it took (the entire experience took about 90 minutes—not including the time to get there and back).
Ultimately, while it sounded strange at first, float therapy ended up being a great way to recover and relax, and I definitely see myself going back for a second try.
You Might Also Like
Jennifer Garner Swears By This Retinol Eye Cream
These New Kicks Will Help You Smash Your Cross-Training Goals
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
Jay Bhattacharya: Why the NIH is pivoting away from mRNA vaccines
Jay Bhattacharya is director of the National Institutes of Health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' decision to wind down its mRNA vaccine development activities marks a necessary pivot in how we steward public health innovations in vaccines. The right path requires us to consider the inherent strengths and weaknesses of a technology as well as any alternatives, along with public attitudes and experience with the technology. The mRNA platform is promising technology. I do not dispute its potential. In the future, it may yet deliver breakthroughs in treating diseases such as cancer, and HHS is continuing to invest in ongoing research on applications in oncology and other complex diseases. But as a vaccine intended for broad public use, especially during a public health emergency, the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust. No matter how elegant the science, a platform that lacks credibility among the people it seeks to protect cannot fulfill its public health mission. It is critical to understand the development of the mRNA coronavirus vaccines in the context of the very successful Operation Warp Speed launched during the first Trump administration. Operation Warp Speed represented a paradigm shift in how the government should invest in new technologies and solutions and embrace strategic investments in public-private partnerships, innovation in trial design and removal of bureaucratic red tape to allow parallel rather than sequential vaccine development. It produced a new vaccine in record time and also helped develop a successful monoclonal antibody. Unfortunately, the Biden administration did not manage public trust in the coronavirus vaccines, largely because it chose a strategy of mandates rather than a risk-based approach and did not properly acknowledge Americans' growing concerns regarding safety and effectiveness. Consider the data: In a late 2024 Pew Research Center survey, 60 percent of American adults reported no intention of getting an updated coronavirus mRNA vaccine despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's advice that nearly all adults receive yet another dose. As of late April 2025 (the latest data publicly reported by the CDC), only 13 percent of children between the ages of six months and 17 years had received an updated coronavirus vaccine, even though the Biden-era CDC had placed the vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule. In 2021, the Biden administration's HHS spent nearly a billion dollars on a campaign supporting the coronavirus vaccine, the most expensive pharmaceutical advertising campaign in history. The government spent the money on a vast number of TV, radio and internet spots, which misinformed the American public that the vaccine would protect them from contracting and spreading covid. Nevertheless, just a few years later, less than half the U.S. adult population will heed the CDC's guidance. Some outlets have blamed the poor coronavirus mRNA vaccine uptake on poor messaging or 'anti-vax' counter-messaging. But the Biden administration made suppression of speech — and a mandate for all on the vaccine — into a priority. The failure was thus not a communications problem. It is a trust problem due to the Biden administration's scientific overreach, public pressure and, frankly, arrogance. In addition to the trust problem, the mRNA technology has special biological features that make it different from other vaccines in that it (ideally) instructs our cells to produce proteins that subsequently invoke an immune response. To do so with complete confidence about vaccine safety and efficacy requires an exact understanding of dosage, biodistribution and off-target effects. Unfortunately, we fall short on all three. We lack clarity on how much antigen each mRNA molecule produces, where in the body the mRNA product winds up, how long it stays in the body, and whether unintended proteins are created. From a regulatory perspective, getting approval for a vaccine with such inherent uncertainties should be difficult. Still, I do not believe the mRNA vaccines caused either mass harm on the one hand or saved 14 million lives on the other. Those estimates swing wildly based on speculative modeling, not concrete evidence. A recent modeling study concluded that the global coronavirus vaccination campaign saved 2.5 million lives from 2020 to 2024, mainly among the elderly. The scientific controversy over the vaccine's effect on mortality rages on. Science isn't propaganda. It's humility. And when public health officials stopped communicating with humility, we lost much of the public, an absolute necessity for any vaccine platform. I am not here to litigate the past. I am here to chart a better path forward. That is why the NIH, under the leadership of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is investing in new vaccine technologies — based on whole-virus inactivated vaccines, which offer a broader immune response and have a longer track record of safety and public acceptance. We are continuing the Operation Warp Speed model of investing in technology with the most potential to help Americans. We will move forward with scientific rigor, transparency and humility. At the NIH, we will fund promising research based not on hype, but on evidence. And I will continue to use my platform to communicate candidly in public conversations where debate and disagreement are welcomed. We are entering a new era of public health, grounded not in wishful thinking or performative consensus, but in open inquiry and respect for the American people's intelligence. The only way to rebuild trust is to earn it — one honest conversation at a time.
Politico
6 hours ago
- Politico
Bhattacharya and Kennedy split on mRNA cuts
AROUND THE AGENCIES National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya is making the case that mRNA vaccine technology is 'promising, but not yet ready for prime time.' He cites a lack of public trust in the technology as the reason his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,recently canceled $500 million in mRNA vaccine development projects. Bhattacharya weighed in on Kennedy's decision in a conversation over the weekend with Steve Bannon, the longtime Trump ally and prominent MAGA figure, on Bannon's 'War Room' podcast: 'The reason that he did that — and I think it's very important for people to understand — as far as public health goes for vaccines, the mRNA platform is no longer viable,' Bhattacharya said. 'You can't have a platform where such a large fraction of the population distrusts the platform, if you're going to use it for vaccines, and expect it to work.' But, but, but: Kennedy, who has long been suspicious of the mRNA vaccine platform, offered an explanation for the funding cuts that contradicts Bhattacharya's reasoning. 'After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses,' Kennedy said in a video posted on social media last week, referring to Covid-19 and flu mRNA vaccines. Big picture: Scientists and drugmakers worry that Kennedy's skepticism of mRNA could stifle cancer treatment developments, our Lauren Gardner reports. mRNA technology can instruct the immune system to attack problem proteins, so it holds promise as a customized treatment for rare cancers and diseases. As such, dozens of mRNA therapies are being studied or are in the drug-development pipeline. Bhattacharya seemed aware of the technology's use beyond flu and Covid vaccines. After telling Bannon that mRNA technology wasn't ready for widespread vaccine use, he added: 'For cancer, maybe it's another story.' WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. A swarm of jellyfish shut down reactors at a French nuclear power station, Ketrin Jochecová, our POLITICO colleague in Europe, reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. OPERATING ROOM A large-scale study of New York's Mount Sinai Health System suggests that artificial intelligence could help emergency departments better handle their patient loads. In the study, researchers from Mount Sinai trained an AI model on 1.8 million emergency department visits between January 2019 and December 2023. Then they tested the model by comparing it with two months' worth of nurse triage assessments of nearly 50,000 patient visits across the system's urban and suburban hospitals. The result: Nurse predictions were 81.6 percent accurate, while the AI model's assessments were 85.4 percent accurate. The study, published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health in July, had a few limitations, the authors noted, including that the research was conducted at a single health system over a short time span. Outcomes might differ in another setting, and longer-term trends could yield different results. Bird's eye view: 'The strength of this approach is its ability to turn complex data into timely, actionable insights for clinical teams — freeing them up to focus less on logistics and more on delivering the personal, compassionate care that only humans can provide,' Dr. Eyal Klang, study co-author and director of the Generative AI Research Program at Mount Sinai, said in a statement.
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Forbes
Small Investment, Big Returns: Why This NIH Center Matters
UNITED STATES - MAY 10: Activists hold signs during rally outside the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., on Saturday, May 10, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images 25 years ago, I had a life-changing experience. I got the biggest break in my career. My application to do a PhD at the University of California, Berkeley was accepted, and I was offered funding support through a National Institutes of Health (NIH) program called the Fogarty AIDS International Training Program. I had little money those days, and without NIH funding and a welcoming professor who cared deeply about global health, I could have never left India for higher education in the United States. Today, I chair a department of global and public health at a leading Canadian university. The life-changing opportunities I had as a Fogarty trainee at Berkeley allow me to pay it forward by training the next generation of global health leaders. I was not the only scholar to benefit from Fogarty funding - nearly 8,500 individuals from 132 countries have trained through Fogarty programs since 1989, and many have become leaders in their countries. Several have led groudbreaking research projects, and led inspiring programs and institutions. Soumya Swaminathan is a great example. After her Fogarty training in the United States, she went on to become a leading HIV and TB researcher, become the Director-General of the Indian Council of Medical Research, and subsequently the first Chief Scientist of the World Health Organization. 'My Fogarty fellowship gave me an opportunity to get exposed to advanced immunological techniques and meet leading experts at a critical stage of my career. It helped spark new ideas and initiate collaboration with international experts which may not have happened otherwise,' she said. Another shining example is Glenda Gray, who was the first female President of the South African Medical Research Council. 'Becoming a Fogarty Fellow catalysed my career as a clinician scientist, and marked the beginning of my research trajectory," she said. "It enabled me to make contributions to HIV vaccine research and development, as well as research in the area of preventing mother to child transmission. The interventions we developed have led to the control of paediatric HIV and improvements in treatment that have reduced HIV-related mortality in children,' she explained. Gray is currently Director of the Infectious Disease and Oncology Research Institute, University of the Witwatersrand. The Fogarty International Center (FIC) has also benefitted US scientists and institutions. In FY24, Fogarty funded 440 U.S. grantees from 122 U.S. institutions in 39 states. Research conducted in Global South countries have led to improved treatments for health challenges of importance to Americans. 'The training programs supported by the FIC over the past 40 years have been unparalleled in their reach and impact around the world,' said Arthur Reingold, Emeritus professor at Berkeley School of Public Health, who has trained hundreds of scholars through his Fogarty grants. 'They have, through their support of highly talented biomedical scientists from scores of low and middle income countries, dramatically improved research and educational capacity globally, as well as markedly enhanced high impact collaborative research on AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and diverse other communicable and non communicable diseases. The benefits resulting from the enhanced research capabilities of scientists supported by the FIC have accrued to people living everywhere, including in the United States,' he elaborated. Lucian Davis, an Associate Professor at Yale Medicine and the Yale School of Public Health, has also used the Fogarty program to train dozens of American and African scholars. 'Fogarty enables us to train the world's brightest minds to tackle America's leading health priorities—a high-impact, low-cost investment that keeps us connected to the world,' he said. And guess what, the entire annual budget of the FIC is a merely 0.2% of the total NIH budget - a drop in the bucket. Despite this tiny investment, the FIC has had a spectacular national and global footprint and impact, by any metric. Today, it greatly saddens me to see defunding of US science agencies, including NIH, and it's devastating impact on US academic institutions and scientists. Several American scientists have either reached out to me to explore options in Canada, or have applied for faculty positions at my university. Scores of American scientists are seeking to flee the country (and become "science refugees"). It boggles my mind that US politicians are allowing this brain drain to happen under their watch. America's economic strength, in part, comes from the nation's immense scientific firepower. I am especially distressed to learn that the FIC is once again on the chopping block, with the entire $95 million budget FIC budget set to become zero in 2026. How exactly is cutting such an impactful program supposed to make America great? Even as the world deals with massive crises like pandemics, conflicts, climate change, and widening economic inequities, all of which require truly, global cooperation and coordination, it seems like politicians are choosing narrow self-interests, nationalism, and isolationism. This strategy is not likely to succeed. Why? We've all witnessed how interconnected the world is during the Covid-19 pandemic. Viruses that emerge in far away places will find us, regardless of who we are or where we happen to live. Every outbreak is merely one long-haul flight away. Smoke from wildfires will travel thousands of miles to darken our skies and choke our lungs. NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JUNE 7: Smoky haze from wildfires in Canada diminishes the visibility of the Chrysler Building on June 7, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by David) Getty Images There is no way to protect just one nation or one region when threats are trans-national. Our fates are undisputably intertwined with that of other countries and peoples. There is nothing 'woke' about looking out for each other in an interdependent world. And that is why America must stay engaged in global health and multi-laterialism. And that is why American lawmakers must work to protect a national treasure like the Fogarty International Center. If an investment is yielding spectacular returns, no smart business person would dream of killing it. So, why defund the FIC and the NIH? If I was a US lawmaker, that is the question I would be asking myself. I take some hope from the fact that the Senate Appropriations Committee recently rejected the Trump administration's proposed funding cuts to the NIH. But the road ahead is long and hard. I hope good sense will prevail and the powers that be will find a way to save America's phenomenal scientific enterprise. Science matters for America's health. It matters for health of the whole world.
